Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula Havixbeck


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Paula Havixbeck

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. While consensus formerly allowed city councillors in Winnipeg to be considered notable per WP:NPOL #3, that consensus has now been deprecated as no longer applicable. Nothing here constitutes a strong claim that she's more notable than the norm for a city councillor, however; there are just two sources here, and they're both WP:ROUTINE coverage of her election results. Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator here, back when consensus permitted them — but as I'm not the only substantive editor since then, I can't just speedy it as "creator requests deletion". Bearcat (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, I have had a look at her coverage in media and there seems to be more that adequate coverage other than her winning . Quite a bit of coverage on a range of issues and events. Karl Twist (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't just say that coverage exists; you have to show your work. Firstly, city councillors always generate coverage in their local media, by virtue of the fact that covering local politics is what local media is for — so local coverage of a city councillor is WP:ROUTINE, with GNG not met until the coverage is expanding beyond the local media into nationalized sources like The Globe and Mail. And secondly, people often just count up the raw text-string matches on a person's name, without adequately assessing which ones constitute substantive coverage about her and which ones just constitute glancing namechecks of her existence — we have to evaluate the quality of the references, not just the number of text matches.
 * And no, the new sources you've added to the article aren't cutting the mustard. "ChrisD.ca" is a blog, not a reliable source — and The Uniter is a student newspaper at one of Winnipeg's universities, which is a class of sourcing that's deprecated as not able to carry notability. And even if we discount those facts and take all of the sources at face value, they're all still local media where coverage of a city councillor is routinely expected to exist, when city councillors only get articles if and when their coverage nationalizes well beyond the purely local. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable city council member, coverage is just routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat and the newly established consensus of councilmembers from Winnipeg. - Enos733 (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per outcomes of similar AfDs on Winnipeg City Councillors. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.